Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 741	control, N = 371	treatment, N = 371	p-value2
age	74	50.70 ± 12.55 (25 - 74)	50.31 ± 13.37 (25 - 74)	51.09 ± 11.84 (31 - 72)	0.791
gender	74				0.802
f		51 (69%)	25 (68%)	26 (70%)
m		23 (31%)	12 (32%)	11 (30%)
occupation	74				0.884
day_training		2 (2.7%)	2 (5.4%)	0 (0%)
full_time		7 (9.5%)	4 (11%)	3 (8.1%)
homemaker		6 (8.1%)	3 (8.1%)	3 (8.1%)
other		2 (2.7%)	0 (0%)	2 (5.4%)
part_time		14 (19%)	7 (19%)	7 (19%)
retired		15 (20%)	7 (19%)	8 (22%)
self_employ		3 (4.1%)	1 (2.7%)	2 (5.4%)
student		1 (1.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (2.7%)
t_and_e		2 (2.7%)	1 (2.7%)	1 (2.7%)
unemploy		22 (30%)	12 (32%)	10 (27%)
marital	74				0.769
cohabitation		1 (1.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (2.7%)
divore		9 (12%)	6 (16%)	3 (8.1%)
married		16 (22%)	7 (19%)	9 (24%)
none		42 (57%)	21 (57%)	21 (57%)
seperation		3 (4.1%)	2 (5.4%)	1 (2.7%)
widow		3 (4.1%)	1 (2.7%)	2 (5.4%)
edu	74				0.954
bachelor		22 (30%)	9 (24%)	13 (35%)
diploma		13 (18%)	8 (22%)	5 (14%)
hd_ad		3 (4.1%)	2 (5.4%)	1 (2.7%)
postgraduate		6 (8.1%)	3 (8.1%)	3 (8.1%)
primary		5 (6.8%)	2 (5.4%)	3 (8.1%)
secondary_1_3		8 (11%)	4 (11%)	4 (11%)
secondary_4_5		15 (20%)	8 (22%)	7 (19%)
secondary_6_7		2 (2.7%)	1 (2.7%)	1 (2.7%)
fam_income	74				0.932
10001_12000		4 (5.4%)	1 (2.7%)	3 (8.1%)
12001_14000		4 (5.4%)	2 (5.4%)	2 (5.4%)
14001_16000		5 (6.8%)	2 (5.4%)	3 (8.1%)
16001_18000		2 (2.7%)	1 (2.7%)	1 (2.7%)
18001_20000		4 (5.4%)	3 (8.1%)	1 (2.7%)
20001_above		12 (16%)	6 (16%)	6 (16%)
2001_4000		10 (14%)	7 (19%)	3 (8.1%)
4001_6000		10 (14%)	4 (11%)	6 (16%)
6001_8000		7 (9.5%)	4 (11%)	3 (8.1%)
8001_10000		7 (9.5%)	3 (8.1%)	4 (11%)
below_2000		9 (12%)	4 (11%)	5 (14%)
medication	74	64 (86%)	33 (89%)	31 (84%)	0.496
onset_duration	74	15.35 ± 11.44 (0 - 56)	16.67 ± 12.76 (1 - 56)	14.03 ± 9.94 (0 - 35)	0.324
onset_age	74	35.35 ± 14.02 (14 - 64)	33.64 ± 13.39 (14 - 58)	37.06 ± 14.60 (15 - 64)	0.297
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 741	control, N = 371	treatment, N = 371	p-value2
recovery_stage_a	74	3.14 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)	3.11 ± 1.26 (1 - 5)	3.16 ± 1.19 (1 - 5)	0.850
recovery_stage_b	74	18.01 ± 2.60 (9 - 23)	17.95 ± 2.66 (9 - 23)	18.08 ± 2.59 (13 - 23)	0.825
ras_confidence	74	30.42 ± 4.75 (19 - 43)	29.89 ± 4.19 (19 - 40)	30.95 ± 5.26 (20 - 43)	0.344
ras_willingness	74	12.14 ± 1.96 (7 - 15)	11.92 ± 1.85 (9 - 15)	12.35 ± 2.07 (7 - 15)	0.346
ras_goal	74	17.57 ± 3.00 (12 - 24)	17.49 ± 2.93 (12 - 24)	17.65 ± 3.10 (12 - 24)	0.818
ras_reliance	74	13.18 ± 2.80 (8 - 20)	12.97 ± 2.58 (8 - 18)	13.38 ± 3.03 (8 - 20)	0.537
ras_domination	74	9.99 ± 2.30 (3 - 15)	10.51 ± 2.06 (6 - 15)	9.46 ± 2.42 (3 - 14)	0.048
symptom	74	30.14 ± 9.80 (14 - 56)	31.24 ± 9.60 (14 - 52)	29.03 ± 10.00 (15 - 56)	0.334
slof_work	74	22.80 ± 4.90 (10 - 30)	22.68 ± 4.44 (15 - 30)	22.92 ± 5.39 (10 - 30)	0.833
slof_relationship	74	25.82 ± 6.01 (11 - 35)	25.51 ± 6.17 (13 - 35)	26.14 ± 5.92 (11 - 35)	0.660
satisfaction	74	20.77 ± 6.83 (5 - 32)	19.22 ± 6.44 (5 - 29)	22.32 ± 6.94 (5 - 32)	0.050
mhc_emotional	74	11.20 ± 3.84 (3 - 18)	10.70 ± 3.41 (3 - 17)	11.70 ± 4.22 (4 - 18)	0.266
mhc_social	74	14.86 ± 5.47 (6 - 30)	15.16 ± 5.48 (7 - 30)	14.57 ± 5.51 (6 - 26)	0.643
mhc_psychological	74	22.28 ± 6.08 (6 - 36)	21.76 ± 5.69 (10 - 36)	22.81 ± 6.48 (6 - 36)	0.460
resilisnce	74	16.62 ± 4.53 (6 - 27)	16.32 ± 4.38 (6 - 24)	16.92 ± 4.72 (7 - 27)	0.576
social_provision	74	13.73 ± 2.98 (5 - 20)	13.30 ± 2.49 (8 - 20)	14.16 ± 3.37 (5 - 20)	0.214
els_value_living	74	17.28 ± 2.91 (5 - 25)	16.65 ± 2.34 (12 - 22)	17.92 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)	0.060
els_life_fulfill	74	12.82 ± 3.32 (4 - 20)	11.81 ± 3.04 (5 - 17)	13.84 ± 3.31 (4 - 20)	0.008
els	74	30.11 ± 5.61 (9 - 45)	28.46 ± 4.44 (20 - 36)	31.76 ± 6.21 (9 - 45)	0.010
social_connect	74	27.09 ± 9.47 (8 - 48)	27.95 ± 8.31 (8 - 45)	26.24 ± 10.55 (8 - 48)	0.443
shs_agency	74	14.53 ± 4.94 (3 - 24)	13.84 ± 4.52 (3 - 21)	15.22 ± 5.30 (3 - 24)	0.233
shs_pathway	74	16.62 ± 3.98 (4 - 24)	16.11 ± 3.81 (8 - 24)	17.14 ± 4.14 (4 - 23)	0.270
shs	74	31.15 ± 8.47 (7 - 47)	29.95 ± 7.97 (13 - 45)	32.35 ± 8.89 (7 - 47)	0.224
esteem	74	12.64 ± 1.52 (10 - 18)	12.86 ± 1.55 (10 - 18)	12.41 ± 1.48 (10 - 16)	0.196
mlq_search	74	14.91 ± 3.30 (3 - 21)	14.84 ± 3.09 (6 - 21)	14.97 ± 3.54 (3 - 21)	0.862
mlq_presence	74	13.49 ± 4.08 (3 - 21)	13.41 ± 3.50 (5 - 20)	13.57 ± 4.64 (3 - 21)	0.866
mlq	74	28.39 ± 6.56 (6 - 42)	28.24 ± 5.79 (12 - 40)	28.54 ± 7.32 (6 - 42)	0.847
empower	74	19.54 ± 4.09 (6 - 28)	19.08 ± 3.71 (11 - 24)	20.00 ± 4.43 (6 - 28)	0.337
ismi_resistance	74	14.68 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)	14.32 ± 2.21 (11 - 19)	15.03 ± 3.10 (5 - 20)	0.266
ismi_discrimation	74	11.26 ± 3.19 (5 - 19)	12.22 ± 2.79 (5 - 18)	10.30 ± 3.31 (5 - 19)	0.009
sss_affective	74	9.92 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)	10.43 ± 3.44 (3 - 18)	9.41 ± 4.08 (3 - 18)	0.246
sss_behavior	74	9.51 ± 3.99 (3 - 18)	10.27 ± 3.96 (3 - 18)	8.76 ± 3.93 (3 - 18)	0.104
sss_cognitive	74	8.24 ± 3.96 (3 - 18)	8.59 ± 4.15 (3 - 18)	7.89 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)	0.449
sss	74	27.68 ± 10.88 (9 - 54)	29.30 ± 10.41 (9 - 54)	26.05 ± 11.23 (9 - 54)	0.202
1Mean ± SD (Range)
2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group	Characteristic	Beta	SE1	95% CI1	p-value
recovery_stage_a	(Intercept)	3.11	0.199	2.72, 3.50
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.054	0.281	-0.497, 0.605	0.848
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.161	0.287	-0.401, 0.724	0.577
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.169	0.410	-0.635, 0.973	0.681
	Pseudo R square	0.012
recovery_stage_b	(Intercept)	17.9	0.439	17.1, 18.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.135	0.620	-1.08, 1.35	0.828
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.383	0.602	-1.56, 0.796	0.527
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.880	0.860	-0.806, 2.57	0.311
	Pseudo R square	0.013
ras_confidence	(Intercept)	29.9	0.821	28.3, 31.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.05	1.161	-1.22, 3.33	0.367
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.317	0.816	-1.28, 1.92	0.700
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.300	1.168	-1.99, 2.59	0.798
	Pseudo R square	0.015
ras_willingness	(Intercept)	11.9	0.328	11.3, 12.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.432	0.464	-0.476, 1.34	0.354
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.631	0.320	-1.26, -0.003	0.055
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.449	0.458	-0.449, 1.35	0.333
	Pseudo R square	0.034
ras_goal	(Intercept)	17.5	0.516	16.5, 18.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.162	0.729	-1.27, 1.59	0.825
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.912	0.551	-1.99, 0.168	0.105
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.49	0.789	-0.061, 3.03	0.066
	Pseudo R square	0.025
ras_reliance	(Intercept)	13.0	0.449	12.1, 13.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.405	0.635	-0.840, 1.65	0.525
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.453	0.407	-0.345, 1.25	0.272
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.631	0.583	-0.512, 1.77	0.285
	Pseudo R square	0.032
ras_domination	(Intercept)	10.5	0.367	9.79, 11.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.05	0.519	-2.07, -0.037	0.045
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.632	0.469	-1.55, 0.288	0.185
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.43	0.671	0.113, 2.74	0.039
	Pseudo R square	0.038
symptom	(Intercept)	31.2	1.609	28.1, 34.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-2.22	2.275	-6.67, 2.24	0.333
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.058	1.182	-2.26, 2.37	0.961
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.667	1.693	-3.98, 2.65	0.695
	Pseudo R square	0.016
slof_work	(Intercept)	22.7	0.812	21.1, 24.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.243	1.149	-2.01, 2.49	0.833
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.724	0.619	-1.94, 0.489	0.249
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.595	0.886	-2.33, 1.14	0.506
	Pseudo R square	0.010
slof_relationship	(Intercept)	25.5	0.981	23.6, 27.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.622	1.387	-2.10, 3.34	0.655
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.06	0.898	-2.82, 0.706	0.247
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.604	1.286	-1.92, 3.12	0.641
	Pseudo R square	0.009
satisfaction	(Intercept)	19.2	1.139	17.0, 21.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	3.11	1.610	-0.048, 6.26	0.057
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.748	1.181	-1.57, 3.06	0.529
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.26	1.690	-4.57, 2.05	0.461
	Pseudo R square	0.038
mhc_emotional	(Intercept)	10.7	0.625	9.48, 11.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.00	0.883	-0.731, 2.73	0.261
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.485	0.541	-0.575, 1.54	0.376
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.17	0.774	-2.68, 0.352	0.140
	Pseudo R square	0.012
mhc_social	(Intercept)	15.2	0.930	13.3, 17.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.595	1.316	-3.17, 1.98	0.652
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.08	0.903	-0.688, 2.85	0.237
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.54	1.293	-4.07, 0.994	0.241
	Pseudo R square	0.015
mhc_psychological	(Intercept)	21.8	1.048	19.7, 23.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.05	1.482	-1.85, 3.96	0.479
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.643	1.022	-1.36, 2.65	0.532
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.71	1.463	-4.57, 1.16	0.250
	Pseudo R square	0.006
resilisnce	(Intercept)	16.3	0.713	14.9, 17.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.595	1.008	-1.38, 2.57	0.557
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.161	0.719	-1.25, 1.57	0.824
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.364	1.029	-1.65, 2.38	0.725
	Pseudo R square	0.009
social_provision	(Intercept)	13.3	0.497	12.3, 14.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.865	0.703	-0.514, 2.24	0.222
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.938	0.557	-2.03, 0.153	0.099
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.864	0.796	-0.697, 2.43	0.283
	Pseudo R square	0.047
els_value_living	(Intercept)	16.6	0.477	15.7, 17.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.27	0.674	-0.051, 2.59	0.063
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.276	0.448	-0.603, 1.15	0.542
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.205	0.642	-1.46, 1.05	0.751
	Pseudo R square	0.042
els_life_fulfill	(Intercept)	11.8	0.508	10.8, 12.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.03	0.718	0.620, 3.43	0.006
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.917	0.487	-0.039, 1.87	0.067
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.926	0.698	-2.29, 0.441	0.191
	Pseudo R square	0.080
els	(Intercept)	28.5	0.884	26.7, 30.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	3.30	1.250	0.846, 5.75	0.010
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.17	0.770	-0.342, 2.67	0.137
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.09	1.102	-3.25, 1.07	0.327
	Pseudo R square	0.074
social_connect	(Intercept)	27.9	1.558	24.9, 31.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.70	2.204	-6.02, 2.62	0.442
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.757	1.144	-1.48, 3.00	0.511
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.931	1.637	-4.14, 2.28	0.573
	Pseudo R square	0.012
shs_agency	(Intercept)	13.8	0.813	12.2, 15.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.38	1.149	-0.874, 3.63	0.234
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.290	0.772	-1.22, 1.80	0.709
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.414	1.106	-1.75, 2.58	0.710
	Pseudo R square	0.026
shs_pathway	(Intercept)	16.1	0.651	14.8, 17.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.03	0.920	-0.777, 2.83	0.268
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.372	0.590	-0.785, 1.53	0.532
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.422	0.845	-2.08, 1.23	0.620
	Pseudo R square	0.013
shs	(Intercept)	29.9	1.381	27.2, 32.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.41	1.953	-1.42, 6.23	0.222
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.662	1.234	-1.76, 3.08	0.594
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.007	1.767	-3.46, 3.47	0.997
	Pseudo R square	0.022
esteem	(Intercept)	12.9	0.234	12.4, 13.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.459	0.331	-1.11, 0.189	0.168
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.155	0.352	-0.534, 0.845	0.661
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.228	0.502	-0.757, 1.21	0.653
	Pseudo R square	0.027
mlq_search	(Intercept)	14.8	0.552	13.8, 15.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.135	0.781	-1.40, 1.67	0.863
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.394	0.661	-1.69, 0.902	0.554
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.383	0.946	-1.47, 2.24	0.687
	Pseudo R square	0.003
mlq_presence	(Intercept)	13.4	0.660	12.1, 14.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.162	0.934	-1.67, 1.99	0.863
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.080	0.732	-1.51, 1.35	0.913
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.190	1.047	-1.86, 2.24	0.856
	Pseudo R square	0.001
mlq	(Intercept)	28.2	1.098	26.1, 30.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.297	1.552	-2.75, 3.34	0.849
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.474	1.251	-2.93, 1.98	0.706
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.562	1.789	-2.95, 4.07	0.755
	Pseudo R square	0.002
empower	(Intercept)	19.1	0.656	17.8, 20.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.919	0.928	-0.899, 2.74	0.325
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.251	0.580	-1.39, 0.887	0.668
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.434	0.831	-2.06, 1.19	0.604
	Pseudo R square	0.013
ismi_resistance	(Intercept)	14.3	0.418	13.5, 15.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.703	0.591	-0.455, 1.86	0.237
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.168	0.555	-0.919, 1.25	0.764
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.373	0.793	-1.93, 1.18	0.640
	Pseudo R square	0.014
ismi_discrimation	(Intercept)	12.2	0.513	11.2, 13.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.92	0.726	-3.34, -0.497	0.010
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.509	0.499	-1.49, 0.469	0.314
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.949	0.714	-0.451, 2.35	0.191
	Pseudo R square	0.066
sss_affective	(Intercept)	10.4	0.603	9.25, 11.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.03	0.852	-2.70, 0.643	0.232
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.225	0.504	-0.762, 1.21	0.657
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.08	0.721	-2.50, 0.330	0.140
	Pseudo R square	0.041
sss_behavior	(Intercept)	10.3	0.624	9.05, 11.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.51	0.882	-3.24, 0.216	0.090
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.248	0.618	-1.46, 0.963	0.690
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.434	0.884	-2.17, 1.30	0.626
	Pseudo R square	0.050
sss_cognitive	(Intercept)	8.59	0.638	7.34, 9.84
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.703	0.902	-2.47, 1.07	0.438
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.03	0.508	0.031, 2.02	0.050
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.81	0.728	-3.23, -0.380	0.017
	Pseudo R square	0.040
sss	(Intercept)	29.3	1.732	25.9, 32.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-3.24	2.449	-8.04, 1.56	0.189
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.08	1.300	-1.47, 3.62	0.413
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-3.35	1.862	-7.00, 0.298	0.079
	Pseudo R square	0.048
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.11 (95% CI [2.72, 3.50], t(107) = 15.65, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.60], t(107) = 0.19, p = 0.847; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.50])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.72], t(107) = 0.56, p = 0.574; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.60])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.97], t(107) = 0.41, p = 0.680; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.81])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.95 (95% CI [17.09, 18.81], t(107) = 40.90, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.08, 1.35], t(107) = 0.22, p = 0.828; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.51])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.80], t(107) = -0.64, p = 0.524; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.81, 2.57], t(107) = 1.02, p = 0.306; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.97])

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.89 (95% CI [28.28, 31.50], t(107) = 36.41, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-1.22, 3.33], t(107) = 0.91, p = 0.364; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.67])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.28, 1.92], t(107) = 0.39, p = 0.698; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.38])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-1.99, 2.59], t(107) = 0.26, p = 0.797; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.52])

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.92 (95% CI [11.28, 12.56], t(107) = 36.36, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.34], t(107) = 0.93, p = 0.351; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.67])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.26, -3.45e-03], t(107) = -1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.63, -1.72e-03])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.35], t(107) = 0.98, p = 0.327; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.67])

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.49 (95% CI [16.48, 18.50], t(107) = 33.92, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.27, 1.59], t(107) = 0.22, p = 0.824; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.50])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.91, 95% CI [-1.99, 0.17], t(107) = -1.65, p = 0.098; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.05])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.49, 95% CI [-0.06, 3.03], t(107) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.96])

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.97 (95% CI [12.09, 13.85], t(107) = 28.88, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.65], t(107) = 0.64, p = 0.523; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.58])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.25], t(107) = 1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.44])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.77], t(107) = 1.08, p = 0.279; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.62])

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.52) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.51 (95% CI [9.79, 11.23], t(107) = 28.66, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-2.07, -0.04], t(107) = -2.03, p = 0.042; Std. beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-0.93, -0.02])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.29], t(107) = -1.35, p = 0.178; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.13])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.43, 95% CI [0.11, 2.74], t(107) = 2.13, p = 0.033; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [0.05, 1.23])

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.24 (95% CI [28.09, 34.40], t(107) = 19.42, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.22, 95% CI [-6.67, 2.24], t(107) = -0.97, p = 0.330; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.23])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-2.26, 2.37], t(107) = 0.05, p = 0.961; Std. beta = 5.84e-03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.24])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-3.98, 2.65], t(107) = -0.39, p = 0.693; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.27])

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.68 (95% CI [21.08, 24.27], t(107) = 27.91, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-2.01, 2.49], t(107) = 0.21, p = 0.832; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.50])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.72, 95% CI [-1.94, 0.49], t(107) = -1.17, p = 0.242; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.10])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-2.33, 1.14], t(107) = -0.67, p = 0.502; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.23])

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.17e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.51 (95% CI [23.59, 27.44], t(107) = 26.01, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-2.10, 3.34], t(107) = 0.45, p = 0.654; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.57])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-2.82, 0.71], t(107) = -1.17, p = 0.240; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.12])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-1.92, 3.12], t(107) = 0.47, p = 0.639; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.53])

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.22 (95% CI [16.98, 21.45], t(107) = 16.88, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.11, 95% CI [-0.05, 6.26], t(107) = 1.93, p = 0.054; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-6.80e-03, 0.89])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-1.57, 3.06], t(107) = 0.63, p = 0.526; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.44])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.26, 95% CI [-4.57, 2.05], t(107) = -0.74, p = 0.457; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.29])

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.70 (95% CI [9.48, 11.93], t(107) = 17.14, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.73, 2.73], t(107) = 1.13, p = 0.258; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.74])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.54], t(107) = 0.90, p = 0.370; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.42])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.17, 95% CI [-2.68, 0.35], t(107) = -1.51, p = 0.132; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.09])

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.16 (95% CI [13.34, 16.99], t(107) = 16.30, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-3.17, 1.98], t(107) = -0.45, p = 0.651; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.36])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-0.69, 2.85], t(107) = 1.20, p = 0.231; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.51])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.54, 95% CI [-4.07, 0.99], t(107) = -1.19, p = 0.234; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.18])

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.62e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.76 (95% CI [19.70, 23.81], t(107) = 20.76, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-1.85, 3.96], t(107) = 0.71, p = 0.477; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.62])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-1.36, 2.65], t(107) = 0.63, p = 0.529; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.41])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.71, 95% CI [-4.57, 1.16], t(107) = -1.17, p = 0.243; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.18])

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.62e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.32 (95% CI [14.93, 17.72], t(107) = 22.91, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-1.38, 2.57], t(107) = 0.59, p = 0.555; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.60])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.57], t(107) = 0.22, p = 0.823; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.37])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-1.65, 2.38], t(107) = 0.35, p = 0.723; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.55])

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.30 (95% CI [12.32, 14.27], t(107) = 26.73, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.24], t(107) = 1.23, p = 0.219; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.73])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-2.03, 0.15], t(107) = -1.68, p = 0.092; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.05])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.70, 2.43], t(107) = 1.09, p = 0.278; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.78])

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.65 (95% CI [15.71, 17.58], t(107) = 34.93, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.27, 95% CI [-0.05, 2.59], t(107) = 1.88, p = 0.059; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.87])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.15], t(107) = 0.61, p = 0.539; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-1.46, 1.05], t(107) = -0.32, p = 0.749; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.35])

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.81 (95% CI [10.82, 12.81], t(107) = 23.26, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.03, 95% CI [0.62, 3.43], t(107) = 2.82, p = 0.005; Std. beta = 0.63, 95% CI [0.19, 1.08])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.87], t(107) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.59])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-2.29, 0.44], t(107) = -1.33, p = 0.184; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.14])

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.46 (95% CI [26.73, 30.19], t(107) = 32.19, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.30, 95% CI [0.85, 5.75], t(107) = 2.64, p = 0.008; Std. beta = 0.59, 95% CI [0.15, 1.03])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-0.34, 2.67], t(107) = 1.52, p = 0.130; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.48])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.09, 95% CI [-3.25, 1.07], t(107) = -0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.19])

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.95 (95% CI [24.89, 31.00], t(107) = 17.93, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.70, 95% CI [-6.02, 2.62], t(107) = -0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.27])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.48, 3.00], t(107) = 0.66, p = 0.508; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.31])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-4.14, 2.28], t(107) = -0.57, p = 0.570; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.24])

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.24, 15.43], t(107) = 17.03, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.38, 95% CI [-0.87, 3.63], t(107) = 1.20, p = 0.230; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.74])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-1.22, 1.80], t(107) = 0.38, p = 0.707; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.37])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-1.75, 2.58], t(107) = 0.37, p = 0.708; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.52])

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.11 (95% CI [14.83, 17.38], t(107) = 24.76, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.78, 2.83], t(107) = 1.12, p = 0.264; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.72])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.53], t(107) = 0.63, p = 0.529; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-2.08, 1.23], t(107) = -0.50, p = 0.617; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.32])

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.95 (95% CI [27.24, 32.65], t(107) = 21.68, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.41, 95% CI [-1.42, 6.23], t(107) = 1.23, p = 0.218; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.75])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.76, 3.08], t(107) = 0.54, p = 0.591; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.37])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 6.51e-03, 95% CI [-3.46, 3.47], t(107) = 3.68e-03, p = 0.997; Std. beta = 7.81e-04, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.42])

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.29) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.86 (95% CI [12.41, 13.32], t(107) = 54.97, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.19], t(107) = -1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.13])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.84], t(107) = 0.44, p = 0.659; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.60])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.21], t(107) = 0.45, p = 0.650; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.86])

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.21e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.84 (95% CI [13.76, 15.92], t(107) = 26.88, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.40, 1.67], t(107) = 0.17, p = 0.863; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.50])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.90], t(107) = -0.60, p = 0.551; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.27])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.47, 2.24], t(107) = 0.40, p = 0.686; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.67])

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.41e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.41 (95% CI [12.11, 14.70], t(107) = 20.30, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.67, 1.99], t(107) = 0.17, p = 0.862; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.50])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.35], t(107) = -0.11, p = 0.913; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.34])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-1.86, 2.24], t(107) = 0.18, p = 0.856; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.56])

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.98e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.24 (95% CI [26.09, 30.39], t(107) = 25.73, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-2.75, 3.34], t(107) = 0.19, p = 0.848; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.50])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-2.93, 1.98], t(107) = -0.38, p = 0.705; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-2.95, 4.07], t(107) = 0.31, p = 0.754; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.61])

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.08 (95% CI [17.80, 20.37], t(107) = 29.09, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.90, 2.74], t(107) = 0.99, p = 0.322; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.68])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.89], t(107) = -0.43, p = 0.666; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.22])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-2.06, 1.19], t(107) = -0.52, p = 0.601; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.30])

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.46) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.32 (95% CI [13.51, 15.14], t(107) = 34.28, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.86], t(107) = 1.19, p = 0.234; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.74])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.92, 1.25], t(107) = 0.30, p = 0.762; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.50])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.93, 1.18], t(107) = -0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.47])

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.22 (95% CI [11.21, 13.22], t(107) = 23.81, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.92, 95% CI [-3.34, -0.50], t(107) = -2.64, p = 0.008; Std. beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-1.05, -0.16])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.49, 0.47], t(107) = -1.02, p = 0.308; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.15])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [-0.45, 2.35], t(107) = 1.33, p = 0.184; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.74])

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.43 (95% CI [9.25, 11.61], t(107) = 17.32, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-2.70, 0.64], t(107) = -1.21, p = 0.228; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.17])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.21], t(107) = 0.45, p = 0.655; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.32])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.08, 95% CI [-2.50, 0.33], t(107) = -1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.09])

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.27 (95% CI [9.05, 11.49], t(107) = 16.46, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.51, 95% CI [-3.24, 0.22], t(107) = -1.72, p = 0.086; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.06])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.46, 0.96], t(107) = -0.40, p = 0.688; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.25])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-2.17, 1.30], t(107) = -0.49, p = 0.624; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.33])

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.59 (95% CI [7.34, 9.84], t(107) = 13.47, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-2.47, 1.07], t(107) = -0.78, p = 0.436; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.28])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [0.03, 2.02], t(107) = 2.02, p = 0.043; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [8.01e-03, 0.53])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.81, 95% CI [-3.23, -0.38], t(107) = -2.48, p = 0.013; Std. beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-0.84, -0.10])

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.30 (95% CI [25.90, 32.69], t(107) = 16.92, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.24, 95% CI [-8.04, 1.56], t(107) = -1.32, p = 0.185; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.14])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-1.47, 3.62], t(107) = 0.83, p = 0.408; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.34])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.35, 95% CI [-7.00, 0.30], t(107) = -1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.03])

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome	model	npar	AIC	BIC	logLik	deviance	Chisq	Df	p
recovery_stage_a	null	3	362.562	370.744	-178.281	356.562
recovery_stage_a	random	6	366.771	383.135	-177.386	354.771	1.791	3	0.617
recovery_stage_b	null	3	538.806	546.988	-266.403	532.806
recovery_stage_b	random	6	543.185	559.549	-265.593	531.185	1.621	3	0.655
ras_confidence	null	3	660.008	668.190	-327.004	654.008
ras_confidence	random	6	664.226	680.590	-326.113	652.226	1.782	3	0.619
ras_willingness	null	3	455.243	463.426	-224.622	449.243
ras_willingness	random	6	455.527	471.892	-221.764	443.527	5.716	3	0.126
ras_goal	null	3	562.681	570.863	-278.340	556.681
ras_goal	random	6	564.130	580.495	-276.065	552.130	4.550	3	0.208
ras_reliance	null	3	524.155	532.338	-259.078	518.155
ras_reliance	random	6	521.433	537.797	-254.716	509.433	8.723	3	0.033
ras_domination	null	3	499.031	507.214	-246.516	493.031
ras_domination	random	6	498.766	515.131	-243.383	486.766	6.265	3	0.099
symptom	null	3	789.808	797.991	-391.904	783.808
symptom	random	6	794.350	810.715	-391.175	782.350	1.458	3	0.692
slof_work	null	3	642.197	650.379	-318.099	636.197
slof_work	random	6	642.602	658.966	-315.301	630.602	5.595	3	0.133
slof_relationship	null	3	694.645	702.828	-344.323	688.645
slof_relationship	random	6	698.638	715.003	-343.319	686.638	2.007	3	0.571
satisfaction	null	3	738.909	747.091	-366.455	732.909
satisfaction	random	6	741.084	757.448	-364.542	729.084	3.826	3	0.281
mhc_emotional	null	3	589.618	597.801	-291.809	583.618
mhc_emotional	random	6	592.621	608.985	-290.310	580.621	2.998	3	0.392
mhc_social	null	3	687.248	695.431	-340.624	681.248
mhc_social	random	6	690.841	707.205	-339.420	678.841	2.408	3	0.492
mhc_psychological	null	3	713.707	721.889	-353.853	707.707
mhc_psychological	random	6	718.070	734.434	-353.035	706.070	1.637	3	0.651
resilisnce	null	3	628.387	636.569	-311.193	622.387
resilisnce	random	6	633.273	649.638	-310.637	621.273	1.113	3	0.774
social_provision	null	3	558.854	567.036	-276.427	552.854
social_provision	random	6	559.103	575.468	-273.552	547.103	5.750	3	0.124
els_value_living	null	3	535.382	543.564	-264.691	529.382
els_value_living	random	6	537.456	553.820	-262.728	525.456	3.926	3	0.270
els_life_fulfill	null	3	557.110	565.292	-275.555	551.110
els_life_fulfill	random	6	553.182	569.546	-270.591	541.182	9.928	3	0.019
els	null	3	673.863	682.045	-333.931	667.863
els	random	6	671.530	687.894	-329.765	659.530	8.333	3	0.040
social_connect	null	3	782.412	790.595	-388.206	776.412
social_connect	random	6	787.084	803.448	-387.542	775.084	1.329	3	0.722
shs_agency	null	3	655.589	663.771	-324.794	649.589
shs_agency	random	6	658.778	675.142	-323.389	646.778	2.811	3	0.422
shs_pathway	null	3	600.669	608.851	-297.335	594.669
shs_pathway	random	6	605.186	621.550	-296.593	593.186	1.483	3	0.686
shs	null	3	770.438	778.620	-382.219	764.438
shs	random	6	774.206	790.570	-381.103	762.206	2.232	3	0.526
esteem	null	3	402.744	410.926	-198.372	396.744
esteem	random	6	405.557	421.921	-196.778	393.557	3.187	3	0.364
mlq_search	null	3	581.579	589.761	-287.789	575.579
mlq_search	random	6	587.087	603.451	-287.543	575.087	0.492	3	0.921
mlq_presence	null	3	616.568	624.750	-305.284	610.568
mlq_presence	random	6	622.468	638.832	-305.234	610.468	0.100	3	0.992
mlq	null	3	733.430	741.612	-363.715	727.430
mlq	random	6	739.169	755.534	-363.585	727.169	0.260	3	0.967
empower	null	3	601.611	609.793	-297.806	595.611
empower	random	6	605.233	621.598	-296.617	593.233	2.378	3	0.498
ismi_resistance	null	3	525.788	533.970	-259.894	519.788
ismi_resistance	random	6	530.333	546.697	-259.166	518.333	1.455	3	0.693
ismi_discrimation	null	3	557.896	566.078	-275.948	551.896
ismi_discrimation	random	6	556.517	572.882	-272.259	544.517	7.379	3	0.061
sss_affective	null	3	581.489	589.671	-287.744	575.489
sss_affective	random	6	581.905	598.269	-284.952	569.905	5.584	3	0.134
sss_behavior	null	3	600.993	609.175	-297.496	594.993
sss_behavior	random	6	601.915	618.280	-294.958	589.915	5.078	3	0.166
sss_cognitive	null	3	593.117	601.299	-293.559	587.117
sss_cognitive	random	6	591.294	607.658	-289.647	579.294	7.823	3	0.050
sss	null	3	813.274	821.457	-403.637	807.274
sss	random	6	812.632	828.997	-400.316	800.632	6.642	3	0.084

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome	time	control			treatment			between
outcome	time	n	estimate	within es	n	estimate	within es	p	es
recovery_stage_a	1st	37	3.11 ± 1.21		37	3.16 ± 1.21		0.848	-0.055
recovery_stage_a	2nd	20	3.27 ± 1.19	-0.163	19	3.49 ± 1.19	-0.335	0.559	-0.226
recovery_stage_b	1st	37	17.95 ± 2.67		37	18.08 ± 2.67		0.828	-0.066
recovery_stage_b	2nd	20	17.56 ± 2.58	0.187	19	18.58 ± 2.58	-0.243	0.222	-0.496
ras_confidence	1st	37	29.89 ± 4.99		37	30.95 ± 4.99		0.367	-0.395
ras_confidence	2nd	20	30.21 ± 4.38	-0.119	19	31.56 ± 4.35	-0.231	0.335	-0.507
ras_willingness	1st	37	11.92 ± 1.99		37	12.35 ± 1.99		0.354	-0.413
ras_willingness	2nd	20	11.29 ± 1.74	0.603	19	12.17 ± 1.73	0.174	0.116	-0.842
ras_goal	1st	37	17.49 ± 3.14		37	17.65 ± 3.14		0.825	-0.089
ras_goal	2nd	20	16.57 ± 2.81	0.503	19	18.22 ± 2.79	-0.316	0.069	-0.908
ras_reliance	1st	37	12.97 ± 2.73		37	13.38 ± 2.73		0.525	-0.306
ras_reliance	2nd	20	13.43 ± 2.34	-0.342	19	14.46 ± 2.32	-0.819	0.168	-0.783
ras_domination	1st	37	10.51 ± 2.23		37	9.46 ± 2.23		0.045	0.668
ras_domination	2nd	20	9.88 ± 2.11	0.401	19	10.26 ± 2.11	-0.505	0.581	-0.237
symptom	1st	37	31.24 ± 9.78		37	29.03 ± 9.78		0.333	0.583
symptom	2nd	20	31.30 ± 8.01	-0.015	19	28.42 ± 7.90	0.160	0.260	0.758
slof_work	1st	37	22.68 ± 4.94		37	22.92 ± 4.94		0.833	-0.122
slof_work	2nd	20	21.95 ± 4.07	0.363	19	21.60 ± 4.02	0.661	0.787	0.176
slof_relationship	1st	37	25.51 ± 5.97		37	26.14 ± 5.97		0.655	-0.213
slof_relationship	2nd	20	24.46 ± 5.13	0.361	19	25.68 ± 5.07	0.154	0.455	-0.419
satisfaction	1st	37	19.22 ± 6.93		37	22.32 ± 6.93		0.057	-0.802
satisfaction	2nd	20	19.96 ± 6.15	-0.193	19	21.82 ± 6.10	0.131	0.348	-0.478
mhc_emotional	1st	37	10.70 ± 3.80		37	11.70 ± 3.80		0.261	-0.570
mhc_emotional	2nd	20	11.19 ± 3.22	-0.276	19	11.02 ± 3.18	0.388	0.872	0.095
mhc_social	1st	37	15.16 ± 5.66		37	14.57 ± 5.66		0.652	0.202
mhc_social	2nd	20	16.25 ± 4.94	-0.367	19	14.11 ± 4.89	0.155	0.178	0.723
mhc_psychological	1st	37	21.76 ± 6.38		37	22.81 ± 6.38		0.479	-0.316
mhc_psychological	2nd	20	22.40 ± 5.57	-0.193	19	21.75 ± 5.52	0.318	0.714	0.195
resilisnce	1st	37	16.32 ± 4.34		37	16.92 ± 4.34		0.557	-0.253
resilisnce	2nd	20	16.49 ± 3.82	-0.068	19	17.44 ± 3.79	-0.223	0.433	-0.407
social_provision	1st	37	13.30 ± 3.03		37	14.16 ± 3.03		0.222	-0.470
social_provision	2nd	20	12.36 ± 2.75	0.510	19	14.09 ± 2.73	0.040	0.051	-0.940
els_value_living	1st	37	16.65 ± 2.90		37	17.92 ± 2.90		0.063	-0.869
els_value_living	2nd	20	16.92 ± 2.51	-0.189	19	17.99 ± 2.48	-0.048	0.186	-0.729
els_life_fulfill	1st	37	11.81 ± 3.09		37	13.84 ± 3.09		0.006	-1.274
els_life_fulfill	2nd	20	12.73 ± 2.69	-0.576	19	13.83 ± 2.66	0.006	0.201	-0.692
els	1st	37	28.46 ± 5.38		37	31.76 ± 5.38		0.010	-1.321
els	2nd	20	29.63 ± 4.56	-0.467	19	31.83 ± 4.51	-0.030	0.132	-0.884
social_connect	1st	37	27.95 ± 9.48		37	26.24 ± 9.48		0.442	0.463
social_connect	2nd	20	28.70 ± 7.76	-0.206	19	26.07 ± 7.65	0.047	0.288	0.716
shs_agency	1st	37	13.84 ± 4.94		37	15.22 ± 4.94		0.234	-0.547
shs_agency	2nd	20	14.13 ± 4.29	-0.115	19	15.92 ± 4.25	-0.280	0.193	-0.712
shs_pathway	1st	37	16.11 ± 3.96		37	17.14 ± 3.96		0.268	-0.535
shs_pathway	2nd	20	16.48 ± 3.39	-0.194	19	17.08 ± 3.36	0.026	0.577	-0.315
shs	1st	37	29.95 ± 8.40		37	32.35 ± 8.40		0.222	-0.600
shs	2nd	20	30.61 ± 7.17	-0.165	19	33.02 ± 7.10	-0.167	0.294	-0.602
esteem	1st	37	12.86 ± 1.42		37	12.41 ± 1.42		0.168	0.377
esteem	2nd	20	13.02 ± 1.42	-0.127	19	12.79 ± 1.41	-0.314	0.610	0.190
mlq_search	1st	37	14.84 ± 3.36		37	14.97 ± 3.36		0.863	-0.061
mlq_search	2nd	20	14.44 ± 3.12	0.179	19	14.96 ± 3.10	0.005	0.604	-0.235
mlq_presence	1st	37	13.41 ± 4.02		37	13.57 ± 4.02		0.863	-0.067
mlq_presence	2nd	20	13.33 ± 3.64	0.033	19	13.68 ± 3.62	-0.046	0.762	-0.146
mlq	1st	37	28.24 ± 6.68		37	28.54 ± 6.68		0.849	-0.072
mlq	2nd	20	27.77 ± 6.10	0.114	19	28.63 ± 6.06	-0.021	0.660	-0.207
empower	1st	37	19.08 ± 3.99		37	20.00 ± 3.99		0.325	-0.488
empower	2nd	20	18.83 ± 3.40	0.133	19	19.32 ± 3.36	0.363	0.655	-0.257
ismi_resistance	1st	37	14.32 ± 2.54		37	15.03 ± 2.54		0.237	-0.375
ismi_resistance	2nd	20	14.49 ± 2.44	-0.089	19	14.82 ± 2.43	0.110	0.674	-0.176
ismi_discrimation	1st	37	12.22 ± 3.12		37	10.30 ± 3.12		0.010	1.177
ismi_discrimation	2nd	20	11.71 ± 2.72	0.312	19	10.74 ± 2.70	-0.270	0.267	0.595
sss_affective	1st	37	10.43 ± 3.66		37	9.41 ± 3.66		0.232	0.630
sss_affective	2nd	20	10.66 ± 3.08	-0.138	19	8.55 ± 3.04	0.527	0.034	1.295
sss_behavior	1st	37	10.27 ± 3.79		37	8.76 ± 3.79		0.090	0.749
sss_behavior	2nd	20	10.02 ± 3.33	0.123	19	8.07 ± 3.30	0.337	0.069	0.964
sss_cognitive	1st	37	8.59 ± 3.88		37	7.89 ± 3.88		0.438	0.428
sss_cognitive	2nd	20	9.62 ± 3.23	-0.626	19	7.11 ± 3.19	0.475	0.016	1.529
sss	1st	37	29.30 ± 10.53		37	26.05 ± 10.53		0.189	0.774
sss	2nd	20	30.37 ± 8.66	-0.257	19	23.78 ± 8.54	0.543	0.018	1.575

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(101.59) = 0.19, p = 0.848, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.61)

2st

t(108.25) = 0.59, p = 0.559, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.98)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(98.26) = 0.22, p = 0.828, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.37)

2st

t(108.21) = 1.23, p = 0.222, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.62 to 2.66)

ras_confidence

1st

t(83.99) = 0.91, p = 0.367, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-1.26 to 3.36)

2st

t(108.68) = 0.97, p = 0.335, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-1.42 to 4.13)

ras_willingness

1st

t(83.53) = 0.93, p = 0.354, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.35)

2st

t(108.54) = 1.59, p = 0.116, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.98)

ras_goal

1st

t(86.30) = 0.22, p = 0.825, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.61)

2st

t(108.99) = 1.84, p = 0.069, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (-0.13 to 3.43)

ras_reliance

1st

t(81.67) = 0.64, p = 0.525, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.67)

2st

t(107.55) = 1.39, p = 0.168, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.44 to 2.52)

ras_domination

1st

t(94.19) = -2.03, p = 0.045, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-2.08 to -0.02)

2st

t(108.41) = 0.55, p = 0.581, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.97 to 1.71)

symptom

1st

t(78.01) = -0.97, p = 0.333, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-6.75 to 2.31)

2st

t(102.22) = -1.13, p = 0.260, Cohen d = 0.76, 95% CI (-7.94 to 2.17)

slof_work

1st

t(78.51) = 0.21, p = 0.833, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.04 to 2.53)

2st

t(103.33) = -0.27, p = 0.787, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.92 to 2.22)

slof_relationship

1st

t(81.91) = 0.45, p = 0.655, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-2.14 to 3.38)

2st

t(107.72) = 0.75, p = 0.455, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-2.01 to 4.46)

satisfaction

1st

t(85.28) = 1.93, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-0.09 to 6.31)

2st

t(108.92) = 0.94, p = 0.348, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-2.04 to 5.74)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(80.70) = 1.13, p = 0.261, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.76 to 2.76)

2st

t(106.68) = -0.16, p = 0.872, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.20 to 1.87)

mhc_social

1st

t(83.36) = -0.45, p = 0.652, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-3.21 to 2.02)

2st

t(108.48) = -1.36, p = 0.178, Cohen d = 0.72, 95% CI (-5.25 to 0.99)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(83.47) = 0.71, p = 0.479, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.89 to 4.00)

2st

t(108.51) = -0.37, p = 0.714, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-4.17 to 2.87)

resilisnce

1st

t(84.43) = 0.59, p = 0.557, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.41 to 2.60)

2st

t(108.78) = 0.79, p = 0.433, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-1.46 to 3.37)

social_provision

1st

t(87.97) = 1.23, p = 0.222, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.26)

2st

t(108.97) = 1.97, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -0.94, 95% CI (-0.01 to 3.47)

els_value_living

1st

t(82.55) = 1.88, p = 0.063, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (-0.07 to 2.61)

2st

t(108.11) = 1.33, p = 0.186, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-0.52 to 2.65)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(83.06) = 2.82, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -1.27, 95% CI (0.60 to 3.46)

2st

t(108.35) = 1.29, p = 0.201, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.80)

els

1st

t(80.80) = 2.64, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -1.32, 95% CI (0.81 to 5.79)

2st

t(106.79) = 1.52, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (-0.68 to 5.09)

social_connect

1st

t(77.99) = -0.77, p = 0.442, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-6.09 to 2.68)

2st

t(102.18) = -1.07, p = 0.288, Cohen d = 0.72, 95% CI (-7.53 to 2.26)

shs_agency

1st

t(82.80) = 1.20, p = 0.234, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.91 to 3.66)

2st

t(108.24) = 1.31, p = 0.193, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (-0.92 to 4.50)

shs_pathway

1st

t(81.68) = 1.12, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.80 to 2.86)

2st

t(107.56) = 0.56, p = 0.577, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.54 to 2.75)

shs

1st

t(81.35) = 1.23, p = 0.222, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-1.48 to 6.29)

2st

t(107.30) = 1.06, p = 0.294, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-2.12 to 6.94)

esteem

1st

t(104.13) = -1.39, p = 0.168, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.12 to 0.20)

2st

t(108.41) = -0.51, p = 0.610, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.13 to 0.67)

mlq_search

1st

t(90.88) = 0.17, p = 0.863, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.42 to 1.69)

2st

t(108.72) = 0.52, p = 0.604, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.46 to 2.49)

mlq_presence

1st

t(87.60) = 0.17, p = 0.863, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.69 to 2.02)

2st

t(108.98) = 0.30, p = 0.762, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.95 to 2.66)

mlq

1st

t(88.69) = 0.19, p = 0.849, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.79 to 3.38)

2st

t(108.92) = 0.44, p = 0.660, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-3.00 to 4.72)

empower

1st

t(81.14) = 0.99, p = 0.325, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.93 to 2.76)

2st

t(107.11) = 0.45, p = 0.655, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.66 to 2.63)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(96.26) = 1.19, p = 0.237, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.88)

2st

t(108.27) = 0.42, p = 0.674, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.22 to 1.87)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(83.41) = -2.64, p = 0.010, Cohen d = 1.18, 95% CI (-3.36 to -0.48)

2st

t(108.49) = -1.12, p = 0.267, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-2.69 to 0.75)

sss_affective

1st

t(80.03) = -1.21, p = 0.232, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-2.72 to 0.67)

2st

t(105.88) = -2.15, p = 0.034, Cohen d = 1.29, 95% CI (-4.06 to -0.17)

sss_behavior

1st

t(83.90) = -1.72, p = 0.090, Cohen d = 0.75, 95% CI (-3.27 to 0.24)

2st

t(108.65) = -1.83, p = 0.069, Cohen d = 0.96, 95% CI (-4.05 to 0.16)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(79.21) = -0.78, p = 0.438, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-2.50 to 1.09)

2st

t(104.65) = -2.44, p = 0.016, Cohen d = 1.53, 95% CI (-4.55 to -0.47)

sss

1st

t(78.30) = -1.32, p = 0.189, Cohen d = 0.77, 95% CI (-8.12 to 1.63)

2st

t(102.89) = -2.39, p = 0.018, Cohen d = 1.57, 95% CI (-12.06 to -1.13)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(53.82) = 1.12, p = 0.537, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.92)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(51.34) = 0.80, p = 0.852, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.75 to 1.74)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(42.99) = 0.73, p = 0.933, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.08 to 2.31)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(42.75) = -0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.48)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(44.21) = 1.01, p = 0.636, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.72)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(41.79) = 2.59, p = 0.026, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (0.24 to 1.93)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(48.70) = 1.65, p = 0.212, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.77)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(39.95) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-3.06 to 1.85)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(40.20) = -2.07, p = 0.089, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-2.60 to -0.03)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(41.92) = -0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-2.32 to 1.41)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(43.67) = -0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-2.96 to 1.94)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(41.30) = -1.22, p = 0.455, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-1.80 to 0.44)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(42.66) = -0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-2.33 to 1.42)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(42.72) = -1.01, p = 0.636, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-3.18 to 1.06)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(43.22) = 0.71, p = 0.963, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.97 to 2.02)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(45.11) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.23 to 1.08)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(42.25) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.00)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(42.51) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.00)

els

1st vs 2st

t(41.35) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.52 to 1.67)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(39.94) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.55 to 2.20)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(42.37) = 0.89, p = 0.761, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.90 to 2.31)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(41.80) = -0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.17)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(41.63) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.89 to 3.23)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(56.05) = 1.06, p = 0.589, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.11)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(46.74) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.38 to 1.36)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(44.91) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.41 to 1.63)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(45.51) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.51 to 2.68)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(41.52) = -1.15, p = 0.516, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.89 to 0.52)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(50.01) = -0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.35 to 0.94)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(42.69) = 0.86, p = 0.792, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.48)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(40.96) = -1.66, p = 0.210, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.90 to 0.19)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(42.95) = -1.07, p = 0.579, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-1.96 to 0.60)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(40.55) = -1.49, p = 0.287, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.84 to 0.28)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(40.10) = -1.70, p = 0.193, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-4.98 to 0.43)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(52.74) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.74)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(50.43) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.60 to 0.84)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(42.63) = 0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.34 to 1.97)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(42.41) = -1.96, p = 0.113, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.02)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(43.77) = -1.65, p = 0.214, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-2.03 to 0.20)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(41.51) = 1.11, p = 0.548, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.28)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(47.97) = -1.34, p = 0.375, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.58 to 0.32)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(39.78) = 0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.34 to 2.45)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(40.01) = -1.17, p = 0.500, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.98 to 0.53)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(41.63) = -1.17, p = 0.498, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.88 to 0.77)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(43.27) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.64 to 3.14)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(41.05) = 0.89, p = 0.754, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.58)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(42.33) = 1.19, p = 0.479, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.75 to 2.91)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(42.38) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.71)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(42.85) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.30 to 1.62)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(44.62) = -1.68, p = 0.202, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-2.07 to 0.19)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(41.93) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.18)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(42.18) = 1.87, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.90)

els

1st vs 2st

t(41.10) = 1.51, p = 0.277, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.39 to 2.73)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(39.77) = 0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.56 to 3.08)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(42.05) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.86)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(41.52) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.57)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(41.36) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.84 to 3.16)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(54.82) = 0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.87)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(46.14) = -0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.73 to 0.95)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(44.43) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.56 to 1.40)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(44.99) = -0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-3.01 to 2.06)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(41.26) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.43 to 0.93)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(49.19) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.29)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(42.35) = -1.01, p = 0.632, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.52 to 0.50)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(40.73) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.25)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(42.59) = -0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.50 to 1.00)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(40.34) = 2.01, p = 0.101, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.00 to 2.06)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(39.92) = 0.83, p = 0.828, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.56 to 3.71)

Pathway Summary

Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Measurement

Table

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Text

Likelihood ratio tests

Post hoc analysis

Table

Between group

Within treatment group

Within control group

Plot

Clinical significance